French Open 2011: four musketeers are swinging away at the top of the modern men's game

Even the French, who are forever romanticising the tennis that was played in
the 1920s and 1930s by their four 'musketeers', would accept that there is a
formidable and gifted quartet swinging away at the top of the modern men's
game.

All to play for: reaching the final and winning the French Open will become a record achievement for any of the four players in the last fourPhoto: AP/REUTERS

Even the French, who are forever romanticising the tennis that was played in the 1920s and 1930s by their four 'musketeers', would accept that there is a formidable and gifted quartet swinging away at the top of the modern men's game.

Four compelling narratives will converge on a rectangle of orange-red clay in south-west Paris this afternoon, as Rafael Nadal plays Andy Murray in the semi-finals on Court Philippe Chatrier, followed by Novak Djokovic against Roger Federer, and it will be an occasion to glory in what ought to be regarded as the strongest era of all time.

Stronger than the sepia days of Jean Borotra, Jacques Brugnon, Henri Cochet, and Rene Lacoste. Stronger than John McEnroe, Jimmy Connors and Bjorn Borg in the 1980s. Stronger than Pete Sampras and Andre Agassi in the 1990s. Across all the eras, wooden, graphite and titanium.

If Murray, appearing in the semi-finals at Roland Garros for the first time, is to go on to win La Coupe des Mousquetaires, he must first defeat an opponent who is arguably the greatest clay-court player in history, someone attempting to equal Bjorn Borg's record of six French Open titles.

Then, in Sunday's final, he would either have to fend off the most successful player in history, a winner of 16 slams, or a player who is riding the longest undefeated streak since the 1980s.

Should Djokovic defeat Federer, he would be guaranteed to become the world No 1 for the first time, an elevation that would formally end the long-running Roger and Rafa Show.

By winning his semi, Djokovic would also put himself level with John McEnroe's record for the best start to a year, which was when he opened the 1984 season with 42 successive victories, though it has to be imagined that Djokovic will care more about reaching a first Paris final and that ranking.

For the last seven years, only Nadal and Federer have been at the top of the electronic billboard, but Djokovic is just three sets away.

No one is pretending that comparing and ranking eras is in any way an exact science, but it is worth doing all the same. It has all come together this Friday, on the first occasion for five years that all of the top four seeds have made the semi-finals of a slam.

It has been Djokovic's surge that has beefed up this era. Even if Djokovic were to lose, he could still start the grass-court season as the No 1 as Nadal must retain his title if he wants to stay on that top line.

Along with almost everyone else in tennis, Murray has long been of the opinion that Federer and Nadal are two of the finest talents to have ever gripped a racket, perhaps even the two greatest. They are two of only seven men, from both the amateur and professional eras, to have completed the career grand slam. Should Nadal win this championships, he would go into double figures for majors.

It was difficult enough for Murray when it was just a duopoly, when Federer and Nadal were divvying up the slams between them, but the sustained brilliance from Djokovic's strings over the last six months has changed the landscape of the sport.

Djokovic, unbeaten in 43 matches, and 41 for the year, has already defeated Federer three times this season, including in the semi-finals of the Australian Open, and he has had four days off before this match.

In thinner times, someone with Federer's back-catalogue of achievement would never have been allowed to arrive at a slam as a half-forgotten, half-remembered, half-loved outsider. In the days leading up to this French Open, and indeed for much of the fortnight, many of the conversations around the grounds about the finalists have included only two names.

"Nadal will beat Djokovic." "No, Djokovic will beat Nadal." The central rivalry this season has been Nadal's with Djokovic, especially after the Serbian defeated the Majorcan in two clay-court finals, in Madrid and Rome.

Yet the Swiss world No 3, who is yet to drop a set so far at this tournament, has the opportunity today to reach his first slam final since winning last season's Australian Open, and to show that there could still be a major or two left in his racket-arm. Federer, a former champion at Roland Garros, is hoping to re-establish himself on any surface, as is Nadal on clay.

There are a few who would suggest that the modern game is too benign, friendly and corporate for its own good, that the wider sporting public would be more interested in the players and the narratives if there was just a little more edge, fire and aggression. Just like the days of McEnroe and Connors.

The best way to refute that view is to quote from the superb essay that Martin Amis once wrote in The New Yorker on the subject of personalities.

"I have a problem with - I am uncomfortable with - the word personality and its plural, as in 'modern tennis lacks personalities' and 'tennis needs a new star who is a genuine personality'. But if, from now on, I can put 'personality' between quotation marks, and use it as an exact synonym of a seven-letter duosyllable starting with 'a' and ending with 'e' (and also featuring, in order of appearance, an 'ss', an 'h', an 'o' and an 'l'), why, then, personality and I are going to get along just fine,” Amis wrote. Civility and good manners do not weaken an era, at least not in pure sporting terms.

One other counter argument against the glorification of this modern generation is to ponder how Murray has been able to make the semi-finals of the French Open for the first time on just one good leg. Does that not indicate, you could say, that there is not a great deal of depth to the game?

Firstly, eras are not defined by the lesser players; in 10 years, few will remember Viktor Troicki and Juan Ignacio Chela. And no one could suggest, while keeping a straight face, that there is less depth to the men's game now than there was in the 1920s, the 1930s or any decade in between.

Tennis has never been as much of an international sport as it is now, and it is harder, more brutal, game than ever before. The leading four have pulled ahead of the field, though there is a gap between the top two and Federer, and daylight between Federer and Murray.

For a French or international audience, Murray's is perhaps the weakest, the least interesting, of the four stories left in the draw. Even if he is only the second British man of the open era, after Tim Henman, to reach the semi-finals in Paris. Even if you have to rewind to Fred Perry in 1935 for the last British men's champion or spool back to Bunny Austin in 1937 for the last British men's finalist.